6.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Poznań.
7.  On 12 March 1993 she lodged an application with the Poznań District Court. She sought interest on the sum of money awarded to her by the court on 30 September 1991. The proceedings were related to other proceedings concerning the division of the matrimonial property of the applicant and her former husband, in particular their apartment. Apparently the apartment had been vested to the applicant's former husband by a judgment of 1992. Other sets of proceedings concerned their mutual liabilities in this regard.
8.  Hearings were held on 25 May 1993 and 31 August 1993. Subsequently, the applicant extended her claim.
9.  On 5 October 1993 the court decided to transfer the case-file to the Regional Court. On 15 January 1994 the Poznań Regional Court transferred the case-file back to the Poznań District Court.
10.  On 9 May 1994 the applicant requested the court to adjourn the hearing scheduled for 10 May 1994.
11.  On 29 July 1994 and 21 November 1994 the applicant's lawyer submitted pleadings setting out details of the claim.
12.  Subsequent hearings were held on 27 September 1994, 24 January 1995, 27 March 1995, 24 April 1995, 17 May 1995 and 19 June 1995.
13.  On 26 June 1995 the Poznań District Court delivered a judgment. It allowed the applicant's claim in part. On 2 September 1995 the applicant appealed.
14.  On 1 December 1995 the Poznań Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case.
15.  A hearing of 10 April 1996 was adjourned to 18 October 1996. A hearing of 18 October 1996 was cancelled because a judge sitting in the case was ill. Subsequent hearings were held on 20 December 1996 and 11 March 1997. It appears that the files of cases related to the present proceedings, requested by the parties on 11 March 1997, had not been submitted to the court. They were eventually submitted on 13 May 1997 and 6 March 1998.
16.  Subsequent hearings were held on 29 May 1998, 8 November 1999, 10 January 2000, 10 February 2000 (adjourned), 31 August 2000 and 12 October 2000.
17.  On 7 December 2000 the Poznań District court delivered a judgment. It allowed the applicant's claim in part. On 10 April 2001 the applicant appealed.
18.  On 7 September 2001 the Poznań Regional Court dismissed the appeal. The judgment was final.
19.  On 9 March 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Poznan Court of Appeal about the excessive length of two sets of proceedings, including the one complained of in the present case (further referred to as “the first set of proceedings”). She invoked section 18 of the 2004 Act (see domestic law part below) and requested the court to find that the length of the proceedings, which had lasted eight and four years respectively, had been unreasonable. She further submitted that she had lodged a complaint about the length of the proceedings with the European Court of Human Rights.
20.  On 21 April 2005 the Court of Appeal rejected the complaint without examining its merits. The court found (referring to the second set of proceedings) that the complaint had not been lodged while the impugned proceedings were still pending. The court further noted that the [second set of] proceedings had terminated in 2000, which was before the applicant had lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rights. Therefore, the applicant had not complied with the provisions of sections 5 or 18 of the 2004 Act and her complaint had to be rejected. The court did not refer to the first set of proceedings mentioned in the applicant's complaint.
21.  Apparently, following the communication of the application, the Government drew the Court of Appeal's attention to the fact that the applicant's complaint concerning the length of the first set of proceedings had not been examined. On 31 March 2006 the president of the court informed the Government that the court would deal with this part of the complaint.
22.  On 31 May 2006 the Poznan Court of Appeal rejected the applicant's complaint concerning the first set of proceedings. The court considered that the applicant had failed to indicate circumstances that would justify her request, as required by section 6 of the 2004 Act. The court found that the mere fact, relied on by the applicant, that the proceedings had lasted over eight years, could not suffice to find that the proceedings had lasted longer that was necessary. Therefore, according to section 9 of the Act, the complaint had to be rejected without requiring the plaintiff to complete it.